Milkbeer: - hey, lets save the globe from man made global warming..... taaaaaaaaaax.
- hey, lets rid the world of poor people.... taaaaaaaaaaaaaax
- hey, lets rid the world of uninsured people....... taaaaaaaaaax

yeah, we're doing a good job saving everybody.... man, you'd think we all have a phd or something..... how do we do it?



i finally get it. republicans are zombies, but instead of mindlessly moaning bbbbrrrraaaaaiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnsssss they moan taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax.
i can't believe i never saw it before

madmann: where the hell DO you guys want it, anyway?

0% on earned income (wages) across the board. There is no GAIN to actually TAX, so there should be no tax on wages you earn since you trade your time, skills, and effort for money - generally understood to be a free and even exchange.

0% tax on the first $10K of unearned income (investments, dividends, capital gains, etc), and then graduated tax up to 50% above $1,000,000 in unearned income.

0% tax on the worker and employer for the first $10K of of income for FICA taxes, flat 12% (6% for each) after that all the way up to $200K.

25% tax on all corporate reciepts above $1,000,000 paid quarterly, reducable with a tax credit for job creation (domestic jobs) and investments in innovation/R&D.

That's a good start I think. Oh, and a flat 10% sales & service tax on all items not food (from the grocery store - not including junk food) clothing (of a cost of less than $100/item), medical or education expenses, or housing.

Property taxes, not my forte (used to work for the IRS, so not my area of expertise - so I'd leave that up to the locals).

YoMammaObama: Where did the law get the word Marriage from.



YoMammaObama: Did they invent it? Saying the Church and State should be separate is a stupid argument, but re-defining a 4500 year old word makes sense. Ok.

Which religion do you think has claim to the word marriage?

hjalmarsson: YoMammaObama: Where did the law get the word Marriage from.



FTFM

WhyteRaven74: Somehow I doubt that.

I just gave you links to and defended the economic policies of JFK. I could also go off on his foreign policy (Decidedly different than Obama's new "I need more time" stratagem) WTF? Get over my login. I don't care that yours sounds like a bad WOW login.

skullkrusher: well the Laffer curve is really just to make your people happy. I don't care if government revenue drops 95% as long as covering all our spending



In America? When's the last time that ever happened?

And yes, I agree, lots of spending cuts. Now if any politician of any stripe would just go along with it.

hjalmarsson: Which religion do you think has claim to the word marriage?

feel free to edumacate me, I'm guessing it was caveman that first came up with the idea. I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

YoMammaObama: hjalmarsson: Which religion do you think has claim to the word marriage?

feel free to edumacate me, I'm guessing it was caveman that first came up with the idea. I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

So there's a study somewhere that provides proof right?

rohar: So there's a study somewhere that provides proof right?

Yes. It is called history. (Not Herstory)

YoMammaObama: Where did the law get the word Marriage from.

Same place it got most words from, common usage at the time the law was made.

Saying the Church and State should be separate is a stupid argument,

Well given it's what the constitution mandates, I'd hardly call it stupid to say they need to be separate.

defended the economic policies of JFK.

Only because you happen to agree with them. I don't quite think you'd like his social policies or his outlook on life.

YoMammaObama: rohar: So there's a study somewhere that provides proof right?

Yes. It is called history. (Not Herstory)

Um, you dont' know a damned thing, you assume, project, guess, lie. Until you've got something you can back up, I'd suggest sitting down and shutting up. The spewage, it makes you look retarded.

hjalmarsson: FTFM

Don't know what it is. The Rosetta stone? Prop from 2001?

Simple lies will always be chosen by the majority over the complex truth.

That dynamic is all you need to know as America slips into a dystopian shiathole.

YoMammaObama: feel free to edumacate me

It wasn't a statement. You obviously feel that the word 'marriage' should be left to 'religion.' Which one? Why?

YoMammaObama: I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

Okay. And?

Phil Herup: WhyteRaven74: I always wonder what would happen if an old school conservative showed up here,



Or an old school Classic Liberal for that matter.

Until one figures out where to doubleclick and where not to, we'll never know.

YoMammaObama: Don't know what it is. The Rosetta stone? Prop from 2001?

Code of Hammurabi

rohar: Um, you dont' know a damned thing, you assume, project, guess, lie. Until you've got something you can back up, I'd suggest sitting down and shutting up. The spewage, it makes you look retarded.

Who the hell are you? You have not participated in any way, or tried to show any "Proof" of anything. No one likes you, and you are not contributing to the conversation.

I also do not know who learned how to tame fire, I don't know who created the first club, if it was bone or a tree limb, and I don't know who invented the wheel. If you would like to edumacate me, feel free. But if the best you can do is regurgitate some insults youve seen smarter farkers post... well we know that is the best you can do. case closed.

hjalmarsson: It wasn't a statement. You obviously feel that the word 'marriage' should be left to 'religion.' Which one? Why?

All religions. Because that is what religion does.

hjalmarsson: Code of Hammurabi

Bad ass. Does it contain anything about marriage?

YoMammaObama: I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

Until the Council of Trent in the 1560s the Catholic church claimed no role in marriage. So, much for the religious element. Also polygamy was among some groups a part of things until near the year 1000, even among those who were Christian. Nominally the church wasn't cool with that, but it let it go for the most part.

So we have to get into the 1560s to have a declaration of a religious role in marriage in Europe. So much for arguing that marriage is always a religious thing.

Don't know what it is. The Rosetta stone? Prop from 2001?

The Code of Hammurabi, which contains the oldest known law pertaining to marriage. Indeed it's the oldest surviving written law code.

YoMammaObama: WhyteRaven74: Tradition is a social construct, not a legal one. And the traditions of marriage have varied much over time and place. The idea you go out fall in love and marry someone without outside constraint is a fairly new development. And indeed even in the West not uniformly accepted.

I'm not sure if you are making a point. Are you trying to?

You can be for tradition all you want, just don't expect it to have any legal significance in a secular society.

YoMammaObama: rastjr: He lowered them, bub. Next?

and what happened when he lowered them?

the mob shot him

WhyteRaven74: The Code of Hammurabi, which contains the oldest known law pertaining to marriage. Indeed it's the oldest surviving written law code.

Which is? ( other than Not 4500 years old, as you previously claimed)

YoMammaObama: All religions. Because that is what religion does.

Different religions have different conceptions of marriage. Unless you are suggesting that words can have different meanings in different circumstances?

YoMammaObama: Bad ass. Does it contain anything about marriage?

It does.

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted during the Mesopotamian world.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: You can be for tradition all you want, just don't expect it to have any legal significance in a secular society.

Again, my argument is to use a secular name and use the religious term for religions.

WhyteRaven74: Until the Council of Trent in the 1560s the Catholic church claimed no role in marriage. So, much for the religious element. Also polygamy was among some groups a part of things until near the year 1000, even among those who were Christian. Nominally the church wasn't cool with that, but it let it go for the most part.

So we have to get into the 1560s to have a declaration of a religious role in marriage in Europe. So much for arguing that marriage is always a religious thing.

Im not sure why religion = Catholic church, but as always I'd love to see your references. is your computer broken? have you seen this "link" thing I keep referring to? Please, keep edjumacating me... so there was no such thing as marriage before the 1560s?

hjalmarsson: It does.

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted during the Mesopotamian world.

the suspense is awesome. still waiting to hear what that law was... I'm rusty on my mesopotamian and it is a small jpeg.

hjalmarsson: Different religions have different conceptions of marriage. Unless you are suggesting that words can have different meanings in different circumstances?

Go on. What religions define marriage as a man and a man or a woman and a woman? I'm all for them doing that, I just haven't heard of them. My friends Bob and Joe were married by their friend who filled out some forms on line to become a minister. I don't recall the church name.

YoMammaObama: rohar: Um, you dont' know a damned thing, you assume, project, guess, lie. Until you've got something you can back up, I'd suggest sitting down and shutting up. The spewage, it makes you look retarded.

Who the hell are you? You have not participated in any way, or tried to show any "Proof" of anything. No one likes you, and you are not contributing to the conversation.

I could be your mother, your son or daughter, some silly CIA plant that normally flies black helicopters and decided to take some time off and fark with you on the internet. Why does it matter who I am or who likes me?

I also do not know who learned how to tame fire, I don't know who created the first club, if it was bone or a tree limb, and I don't know who invented the wheel. If you would like to edumacate me, feel free. But if the best you can do is regurgitate some insults youve seen smarter farkers post... well we know that is the best you can do. case closed.

You don't know a lot of things, I won't let it stop you. Either put up or shut up. You used the phrase "I know" how could you possibly? At best you think, but I'm guessing that's beyond your capacity.

Now go sit down and shut up, adults were talking.

YoMammaObama: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: You can be for tradition all you want, just don't expect it to have any legal significance in a secular society.

Again, my argument is to use a secular name and use the religious term for religions.

Gee, I wonder how all those married atheist couples will react to that?

Good frickin' luck.

sprkythdvl: YoMammaObama: rastjr: He lowered them, bub. Next?

and what happened when he lowered them?

the mob shot him

ZING!

/ I thought it was the Comedian...

YoMammaObama: My friends Bob and Joe were married by their friend who filled out some forms on line to become a minister.

You're not fooling anyone. We all know you don't have any friends.

YoMammaObama: the suspense is awesome. still waiting to hear what that law was... I'm rusty on my mesopotamian and it is a small jpeg.

You can find them here, though the law is irrelevant to my argument. It was only a suggestion as to where we adopted the word marriage.

You have, however, ignored two an opportunity to expound on your 'caveman' idea. Would you care to address them it? Here they are it is, in case you lost them it:

hjalmarsson: YoMammaObama: I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

Okay. And?

Or was that all you had to say?

YoMammaObama: Im not sure why religion = Catholic church,

Well at least in Europe, until the Catholic Church got involved during the Council of Trent, religion had nothing much to do with marriage, ever. Not among the Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Scandinavians etc. While their may have been religious invocations at weddings, they were not seen as religious ceremonies nor arrangements overseen by religious law or edict. Oh and once the Catholic Church said something about marriage, the Protestant churches got in on the act.

YoMammaObama: Who the hell are you? You have not participated in any way, or tried to show any "Proof" of anything. No one likes you, and you are not contributing to the conversation.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Gee, I wonder how all those married atheist couples will react to that?

Even if they are atheists, they still were married. Depending on where, probably by a justice of the peace. Why can't they be married still? What does it matter if the government paper work says "Civil Union"? And why would they be against it?

Does the word religion = Catholic church for you too?

hjalmarsson: Okay. And?

Or was that all you had to say?

Give him a minute, I think my last comment made him cry.

YoMammaObama: What religions define marriage as a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

The Unitarian Church; United Church of Christ; various ministers in other denominations will wed homosexuals.

But hey, would you mind commenting on this?

hjalmarsson: Unless you are suggesting that words can have different meanings in different circumstances?

hjalmarsson: You have, however, ignored two an opportunity to expound on your 'caveman' idea.

Sure. My point was I do not have the answer. Neither does anyone here. Even white raven who pretends she does. It is like asking who invented the club, or who tamed fire, or who invented the wheel. We don't have the patents on these questions. Do I believe there was some type of a caveman marriage, sure... was it what happens in the catholic church today, no I'm sure it is not. Was it between a man and a woman, sure. was there love between men, I'm sure. Between women, I'm sure. Was that marriage? Judging by the historical record of shiat we DO know, no it was not called marriage. I'd be glad to see any contrary info. I'd also gladly bow to an anthropologist who wants to explain more.

WhyteRaven74: Well at least in Europe, until the Catholic Church got involved during the Council of Trent, religion had nothing much to do with marriage, ever. Not among the Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Scandinavians etc. While their may have been religious invocations at weddings, they were not seen as religious ceremonies nor arrangements overseen by religious law or edict. Oh and once the Catholic Church said something about marriage, the Protestant churches got in on the act.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it, since you are incapable of sourcing any of your statements. (Not even a wikki link? come on.) Good night all.

WhyteRaven74: YoMammaObama: I'm not sure if you are making a point. Are you trying to?

My point is, the law is no place to defend tradition. You're free to feel however you want on marriage, but insisting on the law to defend what you perceive as a proper tradition is wrong.
YoMammaObama: hjalmarsson: Which religion do you think has claim to the word marriage?

feel free to edumacate me, I'm guessing it was caveman that first came up with the idea. I do know that it was the union between a man and woman, joining them as husband and wife.

and wife and wife and wife and wife in a lot of cases

hjalmarsson: But hey, would you mind commenting on this?

I'm all for it. They should be able to define it for themselves, because it is their religion. I'm all for religious freedom. I would say they are creating their own definition. For all I know the guy who married my friends was a minister in one of these organizations.

Do you know when these churches were founded and when they started marrying?

I'll respond monday.

YoMammaObama: Even if they are atheists, they still were married. Depending on where, probably by a justice of the peace. Why can't they be married still? What does it matter if the government paper work says "Civil Union"? And why would they be against it?

Does the word religion = Catholic church for you too?

Now you're being purposely obtuse against your own argument.

Yes, atheists get "married" by a Justice of the Peace, which is a secular position and process. But it is still called "marriage". Therefore, "marriage" is not a solely religious property. Therefore, there is no precedent offering support to the argument that same-sex couplings should not be called "marriage" because it doesn't conform to religious dogma.

Have you claimed to be a Libertarian yet? Because frankly, you're not a very good one.

YoMammaObama: What religions define marriage as a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

Religions historically haven't had any definition of marriage. Now if you want religions which saw themselves entirely compatible with gay marriage, well there's Greek and Roman religion. And even though the Roman law code was changed to outlaw such marriages and ordered those so married to be executed, that didn't actually stop such marriages. And if you dig around Europe you find that arrangements uniting two people of the same sex, though predominantly it was two men, for centuries after.

To get away from Europe, gay marriages were performed for centuries in the Fujian province of China until the Ming Dynasty came around. And if you want something modern, Buddhism has no stance on marriage one way or another, makes no claim to a definition.

YoMammaObama: Do you know when these churches were founded and when they started marrying?

I'll respond monday.

3 whole days? That a lot of Ben & Jerry's!

YoMammaObama: hjalmarsson: Different religions have different conceptions of marriage. Unless you are suggesting that words can have different meanings in different circumstances?

Go on. What religions define marriage as a man and a man or a woman and a woman? I'm all for them doing that, I just haven't heard of them. My friends Bob and Joe were married by their friend who filled out some forms on line to become a minister. I don't recall the church name.

the church of the subgenius doesn't give a fark who marries who. so there

YoMammaObama: ince you are incapable of sourcing any of your statements

Well seeing as you can't provide even arguments in support of your position, I'm hardly feeling a need to cite anything.

sprkythdvl: the church of the subgenius doesn't give a fark who marries who. so there

praise Bob

WhyteRaven74: sprkythdvl: the church of the subgenius doesn't give a fark who marries who. so there

praise Bob

did you miss the spaceship on x-day too?

sprkythdvl: did you miss the spaceship on x-day too?

Yeah, damn it, I did.

skullkrusher: a man needs his protein.

/too far

Not nearly far enough.

Go on...

PascalsGhost:
You may very well be pro-legalization. The republican party isn't.

To be fair, neither are the Democrats.

YoMammaObama: Sure. My point was I do not have the answer. Neither does anyone here.

Okay. If that is what you choose to believe, that is fine. I suppose the more pertinent question, then, is thus:

1) If the concept of marriage, according to you, was first between a man and a woman, do you believe that it should stay that way by virtue of it being the inaugurate manifestation of the idea, term, and/or concept?

If you answer in the affirmative, in what fashion do you believe the 'original' concept can be preserved across cultures? For example, marriage has historically been restricted by age, sexual orientation, social class, race, and also been facilitated in ways relating primarily to political and economic factors.

Basically, is it appropriate to add on to the term marriage? If someone marries another of a different age range than the 'originator' is it still 'marriage?' The same applies to race, social class, etc.. Or does marriage only apply to ones sex, in your mind? How is that decision made? If we can add to marriage, can we subtract from it as well?

yeah, that's how the demofascists got into power in 2006.

and now look at them. They've stopped jack squat.